Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – NOVEMBER 13, 2018 SENIOR CENTER, 14 WALLACE AV • Call to Order: LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All • Communications: LM ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, AZ, JB & JM • Hearings CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2014-09 Raul Lopez 19 DWIGHT ST 7:00PM Review of the Special Permit Conditions under §181.313C11&12 to operate an Automobile Repair Service & Towing Business located in the Central Business District at 11/33/0 Presentation given by Raul Lopez stating that his lawyer has the Release State paperwork for the property. From last time before the board yard has clean-up and all concerns been addressed at this time. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – Do you have a date for the closing? RL – Unsure at this time MM – One of the conditions we stated in the past was about dismantled vehicles is this been taken care of? RL – yes, he got rid of dismantled vehicles JB – Looks good, what happened to the tall fence? RL – Accident, a car turnover about a month ago Hearing Closed: Deliberations: The Board are in favor as long as no vehicles for sale, reviewed all 12 conditions and petitioner meets the criteria. Strike condition #1 & 7, adding "file transfer deed with Building Department for records" MM – Motion on ZBA-2014-09 under §181.313C11&12 to Approve the Review with the following amended conditions: 1. Petitioner file a copy of transfer deed with the Building Department 2. No dismantled, inoperable, junk or parts vehicles 3. No auto body repairs 4. No vehicles for sale on property 5. No outside storage of auto parts/tires 6. No plastic and or vinyl banners / Professional signage only 7. Hours of Operation: Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:00PM Saturday 8:00AM-2:00PM Closed Sunday 8. Per parking plan submitted and revised 11/22/2016 9. Parking for 47 vehicles – 6 Customer Spaces, 6 Employee Spaces, and 35 spaces for Repair Vehicles 10. Not to be operated as a nuisance 11. Sunset Clause – Special Permit to terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the business from Raul Lopez at 19 Dwight Street JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Approve the Review with Conditions ZBA-2016-08 Sebastian Cazard 34 KIMBALL PL 7:05PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313D5 for a Construction Yard Business, storing construction vehicles and materials on the property located in the Industrial District at 28/8/0 Presentation given by Sebastian Cazard stating that his project is pretty much done, did some excavating and paving on the property and clean-up to make it look neat. Property has been fenced, parking is lighted at night with security system. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JB – Everything looks good, he did a good job and he complied with what the Board had asked MM – He is agreed with the Board that petitioner has done wonderful job with the property, but could be a good thing to put some conditions on the approval LM – Yes, we should have the Sunset Clause condition AZ – Motion on ZBA-2016-08 under §181.313D5 to Approve the Review with the following conditions: 1. Not to be operated as a nuisance 2. Sunset Clause – Special Permit shall terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the business/property from Sebastian Cazard JM – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Approve the Review with Conditions ZBA-2017-15 Andrew Mercurio 38 OMENA PL 7:10PM Review of Special Permit Conditions under §181.3561 reinstating an abandoned/vacant building as a 2-family structure located in the Residential C District at 10/107/0 LM – Reads a response from Board of Health stating that it would be great to see this building occupied. It is a dead end street and attracts a lot of illegal dumping. Presentation given by Andrew Mercurio stating that he is about to complete his project, he had obtained a lead certification on all the units. As far as outside, he wants to fix the front area, but he can’t finish it until the gas meters are put in and everything else is all set. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – Time frame on when you think it's going to be finalized? AM – About a month AZ – Are you pretty much done anything that could be impacted by the weather? AM – yeah, all the windows are intact, but except by one window that he is waiting to the very end because is so close to the ground. As far as the outside, it's pretty wrapped-up, and most of the work has been done inside as well. Basically, what I need to complete outside is more cosmetic and add some more lighting. MM – When does the driveway get paved, and the parking area? AM – It’s already paved – MM – On the second floor are those new windows? AM – Yes, and he close out a common area window that was to low – MM – You said you did siding? AM – Yes, just at front MM – What happened with the empty lot, did you clean it up? AM – Yes, he cleaned it up, but that’s another issue, he cleans it up and when he comes is a lot more dumped every time. He thinks that in the last month he had the dumpster twice to throw out couches and bureaus and all kind of stuff. He is hoping that once the property is rented this issue won't continue MM – Just one more question: Initially we wanted to the all the lots been combined into one deed. It’s that been done and recorded? AM – yes, when we did it, we put it in writing however the Board had specified--that it was accessory lot and wasn’t to be used or sold on its own. LM – Do you have a copy of it? AM – No, but he could bring a copy to the Board Hearing Closed: Deliberations: LM – Would like to have a 4 months Review so the petitioner would have plenty time to finish and complete his project All Board Members were agreed MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-15 under §181.3561 to Approve the Review with the following conditions: • Review in 4 months March 2019 • At that time petitioner to submit a copy of recorded deed for the auxiliary lot not to be used other than as per plan submitted AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Approve the Review with Conditions ZBA-2018-03 North Central MA Chamber of Commerce 860 SOUTH ST 7:15PM Review of the Change of Conditions on a Variance under §181.5362 & .5363 for an Electronic Sign located in the Neighborhood Business District at 182/3/2 Presentation given by Roy Nasciamento, CEO, and Christopher McDermott stating that sign is up and running, couple months ago you were concern about the sign height but sign is working great. Had received a good support from abutters in petitioner’s favor Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – No flashing, blinking, animation or videos? CM – No LM -Been doing any public services announcements? CM – No yet, the only public announcement is about the winter coming events – LM – Hours of operations 6:00AM – 8:00PM and you been doing that? CM- yes – LM – It's automatic shut-off? – CM- Yes Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – Good job JS – Still think that the North Central Chamber could do better than that Board Members all were agreed to strike condition #9 MM – Motion on ZBA-2018-03 under §181.5362 & .5363 to Approved the Review with the following conditions: 1. No flashing/blinking, animation or video of sign 2. Alpha/Numeric/symbolic picture display only 3. Public service announcements to include in the text, such as, time, temp, and amber alerts 4. Signs to be maintained and in good condition and repair 5. Sign to meet D.O.T. standards – not less than 8 second display change 6. Hours of Operation: 6:00AM -8:00PM 7. Not to be operated as a nuisance 8. Height of sign not to exceed 10’4” above the mean ground level 9. Sunset Clause – Variance will terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the property/business from the North Central MA Chamber of Commerce AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Approve the Review with Conditions ZBA-2018-11 Brothers Parking Lots and Roads 126 JACKSON AV 7:20PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313D5 for a Construction Yard located in the Industrial District at 59/9/0 Chair Person made 3 calls, but No one is in attendance in the audience for this hearing Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: LM – Building Department should be noticed that petitioner wasn’t in attendance for the hearing Board Members were agreed that, since this is the 1st time that petitioner missed a hearing. They would like given the petitioner an opportunity to come back on December 11, 2018 AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-11 to Continue to December 11, 2018 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Continue to December 11, 2018 ZBA-2018-33 Elcevich, LLC /John Zarrella 915 SOUTH ST 7:30PM Continuance: Variance under §181.535 for the construction of a Free Standing Sign 2’ from the side line of South St. and the bottom of the sign will be street level located in the Neighborhood Business District at 182/2/A Anthony Zarrella recused himself for the hearing, as petitioner is his father. Presentation given by John Zarrella, Anthony Benoit (from Wass-Arthur Sign) and Anthony Cleaves (from Whitman & Bingham) stating that sign will be constructed in a landscaped area which slopes gradually out from back to front. We also need to provide and right of way to the abutter property which its 24’, originally was proposed the sign much closer to the intersection, but we didn’t want to do that we want to try to work and provide as much of operation to the street visibility and to be more zoning compliant. We did move the signage further away from the intersection and get away from the visibility issues that could occur on that location. Our plot plan shows the snow storage and a right of way provided to the neighbor. This is a Business District and typically all on this area are a lot of businesses Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – What are the sign dimensions? AC- Proposed sign is a free-standing sign 28’ X 103” including overhangs JM – Did a good job, looks great and this will be a good fit MM – He is looking this 100% on favor, but I need to see the safety aspect for traffic -AC - We are not going to affect the sight of what is there today MM – City Ordinance By-Law is 20’ feet from interception on a corner lot, as a safety guide for traffic -AC - Plan shows the vision on intersection for safety and is not a detrimental affecting the neighborhood LM – Hours of operations? JZ – Signage to be off from 12:00AM to 7:00AM 7 days a week MM – From the edge of the pave sidewalk how far to the sign? AC – About 8” – 8” and 1/5 feets Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – Meet the criteria for the Variance JB – Will be a good fit for the area MM – Motion on ZBA-2018-33 under §181.535 to Grant the Variance with the following conditions: 1. Signs to be maintained and in good condition and repair 2. Hours of Operation: Sign to be off from 12:00AM – 7:00AM 3. Not to be operated as a nuisance 4. Height of sign not to be lower than 8 feet above the mean ground level 5. Sunset Clause – Variance will terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the property/business from Elcevich, LLC / John Zarrella JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Grant the Variance ZBA-2018-35 Solar Wolf Energy/Craig Caron 165 KING ST 7:45PM Variance under §181.414 for the construction of a Solar Ground Mount leaving 18’.2 from the front property line and 17.3’ from the rear property line located in the Residential B District at 77/89/0 Presentation given by Craig Caron, Jennifer Smugly and Ted Strzelecki stating that installing these Solar Ground Mount will help them with the electrical bill cost, also this will improve the property value. Solar wolf Energy applied online for a building permit to install the mount. Both Building and Electrical permit were approved. City wire inspector had inspected and sign off, but the building inspector did not because the property is a corner lot and it has 2 front yards to meet with the City zoning set-back requires. The job has stopped according to and they are now seeking to get a variance relief to finish such project. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None JM – Any fence? Would be okay to have a fence there just to keep people away from it - TS - No, we don’t usually fence it MM – Is this your first project you've done in Fitchburg? TS– Oh no, I have done many, but many towns in Massachusetts, properties front yard set-back are 15’ not 25’. Also, Cities and Towns do not require the same information JS – Did you submit a plot plan when you apply? TS– So, this is the problem we are experienced with solar because still is kind of new system. No town in Massachusetts required same paperwork, some require special engineering plot plan before, some require basically a phone call and others just said call when you are done, still a very open with the solar requirements LM – How did you end here tonight? TS– Well, the building inspector came over to inspect and tell us we need a variance relief from Board or Appeals because of the set-back MM – Who takes the hardship in case of the variance doesn’t grant? TS– We will have to remove the equipment and absorb the costs of it – MM – The way that he sees it, and that’s why we have the by-law on place out there because if he lives next door, he wouldn’t want to see something like that; on the roof is different. He will like to see a vinyl fence surrounding for the neighborhood safety -TS - Normally do wrap the electrical cable cover with mulch so the children can’t go there and pull a cable it’s to makes it safe, as a company we also plant bushes either side as may it required AZ – Could this be rotated 90 grade degrees to fit it better? TS– No, we cannot. The panels are angled, so if they were going in that direction, the structure would be much too tall at its highest point. AZ – Looking all this, what he is trying to find is topography, how this is an unique circumstances and the hardship -TS - So, his point is, if he got the building permit approve from the Building Department because someone reviewed and approved it. Now they did not saw or said anything about the 2 front yards it wasn’t his error LM – What she would like them to do is to find out how they got into the situation? What plan was submitted when you apply? And bring copies of all of that when you came back – TS - sure, we would be prepared with all of that and will bring the company lawyer too LM – would you like a Mutual Agreement of Extension for December 11, 2018? CC – Yes AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-35 to Continue to December 11, 2018 JBE – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Continue to December 11, 2018 ZBA-2018-36 Erlian Lu 479 WATER ST 8:00PM Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 4-family dwelling located in the Central Business District at 96/5/0 Presentation given by Erlian Lu stating that she bought the property couple months ago and when she tried to restore electricity found out about the City of Fitchburg Ordinance. She obtains this property from a bank as 4-family dwelling but doesn’t meet the City Ordinance parking. She was suggested from the Building Department to get a Special Permit for the reinstatement, she would like to keep it as 4-family and 1-bedroom unit. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None JB – Were you told when you bought the property that for a 4-family dwelling you will need 8 off the street parking spaces? EL – Well the Realtor said something about Fitchburg Special Rule, but after she hire an electrician and tried to pull a City permit then she was explained by the building inspector – JB – Our City Ordinance says that you have to have 2 parking spaces per unit – EL – She understood that after talking with the Building Department, because property has been 3 years vacant and bank owned they would have to treat it as a new construction in order to be properly reinstate AZ – Because is a multi-family dwelling you also will need a 10’ buffer for snow storage on top of the parking – EL- Oh, understand, but she thought that only applies to new construction not to vacant or bank own properties. She probably could minimize the parking size requires and make 4 spaces – AZ – But even if reduce them a little bit to make 4 you still have none of the require buffer strips, and you will have undersize parking spaces – EL – Oh, she didn’t know LM – Did some research and found out that this is about 2,300 SF the entire building this is an average size for a single- family home, to her it looks that originally was a single-family dwelling and it got change over the time – EL – It’s doesn’t look like the house it’s on very good conditions and each unit has a kitchen AZ – City Ordinance says if you have 4-family you need to have 10’ feet buffer, now if it is 3-family or less you don’t. We just telling you so, you can understand that your petition is far away from compliance with City regulations -EL - Okay LM – How about the renovation it’s more than 50% that you are renovating, electrical, plumbing new heating system? EL – structure wise there is not going to be any changes – LM – Any electrical and plumbing? EL – Electrical no much just 4 new panels and plumbing she would have to hire a plumber to go through it. Windows are already vinyl windows, the house has a good condition siding, basically she is planning to do some walls and some new floors JB – The Board cannot allow you to move forward with the petition, because base on the property plot plan does not meet the Special Permit Criteria – EL – Oh understand, but this was last use as 4-family and all she wants is make this old looking building to looks neat, clean and much better for the City AZ – There is a big problem at the City with parking like Main Street and Water Street, we cannot allow two or three of your tenants cars parking off-street and have 5 – 6 to be parking on the Street – EL – Well, when you rent an apartment not all tenants have cars, you can also pick who to rent too. It can just be rented to single persons without car, basically 1- bedroom apartments most the time are rented by singles. AZ – He could be wrong, but isn’t there a law that Landlord can’t ask tenants about their family status? EL – Yeah, and no, no we can’t discriminate but just saying base on her own experience as a landlord, that one-bedroom apartments are typically more attractive by a single persons MM – This is a hard one to reinstate or to make it re-habitable because there is no land around the property, no yard to create parking; so realistically the best fit to a better Fitchburg is to revert this building back into a single-family dwelling. As we mention before this is a volunteer board to make Fitchburg a better place and we have to follow our by-laws that been writing on the book, we do not write the bylaws but we are here to follow them and we made a decision based on those bylaws and make Fitchburg a like City – EL- To switch this into a single family it will cost much more them keeping as 4-family and she doesn’t think it will be worth it LM – From all you heard tonight. We could offer you a continuance if you like? So, you can explore some other options and come back to see us – EL – Yeah, we can do that, and she can talk to her friend next door neighbor who has plenty parking maybe she will allow her to rent some parking spaces AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-36 to Continue to December 11, 2018 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Continue to December 11, 2018 ZBA-2018-21 FBC19-62, LLC 126 PACIFIC ST/183 CEDAR ST/191 CEDAR ST 8:15PM Reconsideration: Appeal to Overrule the Building Commissioner’s Decision for the need of a Special Permit from The Planning Board under §181.752 in a Residential B District at 13/51/0, 13/50/0 & 13/48/0 Chair Person made three calls, no one is in attendance in the audience for this hearing LM – She received an email with an attached note dated as 11/13/2018 from Bodanza & Bodanza to the City Solicitor Vincent Pusateri stating that in respond of a previous letter from November 8, 2018. He will agree for a continuance relative to this evening’s meeting. Chair Person wasn’t present on the last Zoning meeting and she didn’t know what happened on that meeting. However, she had to acknowledge and show it to Board tonight that she had received through her email. AZ – What happened last month was that we had received a communication from Atty. Bodanza and he had read an extension of time for continuance to October with Kathleen, so he thought he was coming to October’s meeting. So we voted for a reconsideration on the case to give him the opportunity to appear and express his petition AZ – Reads into the record a letter from Robert Catalano father of Robert Catalano Jr. tenant of 183 Cedar Street stating that from the months of March 2017 thru July 2017, his son paid rent for a basement room and during those months his son was one of seven (unrelated by blood of family) young men and women who also rented rooms from Mr. Bletzer. Basement room was damp and moldy. LM – Reads a comment from the Community Development on the response sheet stating that they continue to hear complaints from abutters about the negative impact to their properties from driveway and draining issues Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None In Opposition Michael and Jennifer Latini of 199 Cedar St. LM – Anything new to add on the case? JL- It is annoying, and the parking issue continues. He also left a note on our house door stating since the 2/15/2018 Planning Board Meeting concerning the on his properties. The draft petition the neighbors were asked to sign reads, "Mr. Bletzer has been cooperative neighbor, he installed a fence and has new tenants that have been very good with no incidents. He also installed security cameras, the parking has been limited to his tenants and has policed the lot so no one else park there. He is a wonderful neighbor and urge the City of Fitchburg to support him." AZ – We are not going to be deciding on this tonight because is in active litigation, so we are going to wait and see how that goes first LM- So, what we are going to do is, we are going to table this for a few minutes because the City Solicitor is driving to here right now to comment on this case and if you want to be involved you should wait. Right now, we are taking this case out of order and we will bring it back later and recollect any information from the audience AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-21 to Table the matter. JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Table City Solicitor Vincent Pusateri stays that Atty. Bodanza and his office are in the process of a settlement which includes set-back issues for parking. The 3 parking spot on Pacific Street installed a fence right above the gate and a 3ft buffer runs along the property left side. To removed parking spot #1 and landscape that area, to keep parking spots from 2 – 7 and to eliminate #8, 9, & 10 to use the spaces for snow storage. Eventually is going to an infiltration trench per engineer, so all the way back on 183, and 191 Cedar Street will be creating a drainage with some landscape or a fence. We are going to allow him up to 4 unrelated tenants, even though he wants more. AZ – So, even if it’s 4 or less if he is renting separate units that’s still not a single family? VP – Right, so the issue of how many people are going to be allow on each house, first we are trying to clean the site planning issues. Next we will put number of occupancy on each house; we are either file by motion for some readjustment or try getting through a procedure of superior judge to tell him how many people are able to be there. Till that point we will make a decision and them the case will be over and we will have a drawing that hopefully will accommodate the other interest that the City has, which is to decongest Cedar Street. LM – The only recommendation she wanted to said to the City Solicitor is to drive by to these properties prior negotiation can be made – VP – Okay, will do LM – Reconsideration on this case what we should do? VP – Just continued to the next meeting – LM – Next one or the one after? VP – Do the one after to January 8, 2019 LM – We gave him Reconsideration and he didn’t show – VP – Because he contacted the office and said he couldn’t be here –LM – But, he didn’t tell us that – VP- Well, they communicated to me and felt that my office would told you AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-21 to Continue to January 8, 2018 MM – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Continue to January 8, 2018 ZBA-2018-30 David & Lorie Petrucci 1280 ASHBURNHAM HL RD 8:30PM Continuance: Variance under §181.3433 to erect an 1100 sq. ft. addition for an Accessory Apartment located in the Rural Residential District at 77R/23/4 Presentation given by David and David Petrucci stating that from last meeting presentation we did some changes. We are trying to do this so they can stay and live together with his son and his family, they will have a common area to the main house. Mr Petrucci would like a littler space because he feels that they still are young and they are looking this as a long term accessory. So with this new propose plan addition for the accessory will be about 952SF and will be incorporated into the main house by a door through the garage. Those seeking information: Thomas Albuit of 1242 Ashburnham Hl Rd., Next door neighbor to the left. The concern he has is that Mr. Petrucci operates a business out of his house, property is located on a Residential area and by allowing to increase the leaving area of the house he is afraid that on the future it will get convert into a commercial property. One of the reason he bought my property at there because of the quiet and peacefull neighbor, so he doesn’t wants that to change. Also, on the back of the property there is foundation and its seeing like is to build a house, not sure but its there. Those in favor: Daniel Cole of 1296 Ashburnham Hl Rd., just next door neighbor to the right John Romano of 231 Sheldon Rd., behind Mr. Petrucci property Those in Opposition: None MM – By looking the plan you had removed the breezeway, but you are not incorporating any of the existing house. There is not going to be a front door? DP – Right – MM – You did reduce it LM- Do you have a home occupation registered for your business? DP – Yes, I do AZ – Do you storage material there? DP – I have some material, but he can remove it. The "foundation" is just a cleared area, and there are currently some cinderblocks. Originally he planned to build his single family house there, but it didn’t go through so he covered it MM – You still not incorporating the accessory apartment with the main house AZ – The closer you can go as a single family shown on those plans if the better, because it’s supposed to keep and stay as a single family dwelling. I think this is a distinction without a difference--if they had just built the addition without a kitchen, which they have more than enough land to do, and only then applied for the accessory apartment, it would be an easy "yes", so I don't see why it should be a "no" only because they're asking before building rather than after. LM – We as the Board try to do anything that is more favorable and give any suggestion to help the Petitioner MM – Unfortunately does not fit neither meet the Variance requirement LM – It is possible for this to get any smaller? DP – No, we have 10 grandchildren and want the family to come over, to enjoy holidays ect. JM – Why don’t you go over to their house? DP – It won't be the same LM – Would you like another opportunity to come back? Maybe do some changes on those plans or think about another option – DP – Yes, he think it will the better AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-30 to Continue to December 11, 2018 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Continue to December 11, 2018 ZBA-2018-25 Raffael DeFeo 318 FIFTH MA TPK 8:40PM Reconsideration: Variance under §181.4214 & §181.4215 for a fence over 6’ high on a corner lot located in the Residential B District at S46/6/0 Presentation given by Raffael DeFeo stating that there was a misunderstanding when I initially spoke with a Building Inspector. Inspector explained to him about the Fitchburg Zoning fence regulations, but I understood that this apply only if it a solid fence not when you can see through it and along that he had lattice on top. So, he moved forward and installed the 8’ fence and make sure the lattices were done, until he received a violation letter from the Building Department stating that he should apply for a Variance prior installation and suggested to apply to come before you. Originally there was a 6’ fence and there was a car accident which caused major damage to the fence, the house hydrant as well to the property. He had talked with his right-side neighbor and he was agree with to install the 8’ feet fence for privacy, he also is willing to move it as far from the corner side as the Building Commissioner indicates him for safety purpose Those seeking information: None Those on favor: None Those on Opposition: None LM – Has the Building Inspector come by recently? RD – No, he moved the fence farer in and he would like the Commissioner to come by to tell him if he would want it more farer off the corner LM – Why would you go for a higher fence? RD – Yes, because of combination things. Since the gas station got there and the Condos near us on Franklin Road we have heavy traffic, which this help with the noise, headlights, and the drivers speed AZ – Just wanted to summarize two things on the application, one is the Permit for the additional two feet ladders on of the fence. Second is the set-back issue, how close to the road can he get. Was this why Mr. Barbadoro was supposed to come and look up? RD – Yes, even that he has already moved the fence farther, Mr. Barbadoro was supposed to come and let him know if he need to move it more MM – He is okay with the fence, but struggle with the lattice work, but he understand his point. JB – he is good with the fence and okay with the 2’ feet, but he is not good with the 8’ feet heigh farther than the edge of the house – RD – Okay but having the fence the way it is. It’s helping to people to stop and slow down their speed, every morning there are people speeding, but because of the fence they make stop Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – Granted the Special Permit with conditions, He is okay JB – Good enough, looks great the way it is AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-25 under §181.4214 & §181.4215 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions: • 6’ to 8’ feet final 2’ as lattice • Fence to be maintained and in good condition and repair • To be altered as per Building Department instructions JB – Motion Seconded Vote 4-1 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions MM - Opposed ZBA-2018-34 Edgewater Construction, Inc. 592 WESTMINSTER HL RD 8:50PM Continuance: Variance under §181.414 to divide the lot leaving less than the required area located in the Residential A-2 District at 187/15/0 Presentation given by Lawyer Brian Tobin, Elijah Ketola and Richard Davenport (owner) stating that on the continuance he was supposed to present an agreement from Mr. Davenport, but instead we had brought him as he is the Property owner so they can see the hardship, because he is currently not in conditions economic speaking to maintain the 2nd lot on the safety and topography issues AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-34 to Allow Amendment of the application to Add Mr. Davenport as a Party on this case JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5-0 to Allow Amendment of the application to Add Richard Davenport Those seeking information: None Those on favor: None Those on Opposition: None AZ – I still don’t understand about the hardship issue. I understand what the hardship is, but I don’t understand why hardship cause or connect about the topography is, and the Ordinance that you are asking for relief from is not a valid reason. He doesn’t see the subdivision of this will solve the problem that being cause by the soil and topography ect. – BT – Owner is not able to maintain the whole property in order – AZ – He remembered petitioner made the argument, but is not really a fit between the problem and the solution JS – Not on favor, she feels that there are safety concert about dividing the property AZ – The point of the City Ordinance were created to avoid to created more non-conforming – RD – Well, the neighborhood is an old neighborhood and almost every house on the neighborhood are non-conforming AZ – Well, that is not why or how we grant variance on a property – BT – But, at the end there is going to a brand new house which also will increase abutter’s property value MM – He been studying the case very closely and openly, but there is not a hardship AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-34 under §181.414 to Grant the Variance to divide the lot MM – Motion Seconded Vote 0-4 Variance DENIED Unanimously ZBA-2018-17 Bienvenido Vicioso 18-20 BEEKMAN ST 9:00PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential B District at 95/19/0 Presentation given by Bienvenido and Victor Vicioso with Yulitza Vicioso as interpreter stating that certified plot plan showing parking on hands, chickens had been removed and would like to re-storage electricity for the 3rd unit Those seeking information: None Those on favor: None Those on Opposition: None LM – You are here for the dimension for the parking spaces? Yes, and here is the plot plan with 6 parking spaces AZ – Parallel parking meet the petitioner criteria MM – In favor, met parking criteria just would like to be paved and stripe -VV- The whole parking – MM – yes, where cars are going to be parked – BV - Okay Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – In favor of it, he think it will be a good idea to have as a condition that the Building Department don’t issue the Certificate of Occupancy on the 3rd unit until parking is completely paved and striped Board Members all agree having the condition AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-17 under §181.3561 to Grant the Special Permit with conditions: • Parking area per plan to be paved and striped prior to 3rd unit Certificate of Occupancy issuance MM – Motion Seconded Vote 5-0 to Grant the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-2018-13 Nadel Antonio 20 WALNUT ST 9:10PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.355 to change from a single-family structure to a two-family and a Variance under §181.414 to add a second means of egress from the second floor leaving approximately 1’ to the property line located in the Residential C District at 68/43/0 At this time the petitioner had written a note to the board expressing that he is no longer interested to continue with the petition. He requested to withdraw his petition. Those seeking information: None Those on favor: None Those on Opposition: None AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-13 to Give Leave to Withdraw without Prejudice MM – Motion Seconded Vote 5-0 to Grant to Withdraw without Prejudice ZBA-2018-23 Roberto Fernandez 27 GAGE ST 9:20PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling with stacked parking spaces located in the Residential B District at 31/111/0 Presentation given by Roberto Fernandez stating that he been working and getting more ideas to address the parking situation. Petitioner had talked to his neighbor about a wall that is collapsing on the right side of his property and it need to get fix, the neighbor is okay by permitting him to fix the wall and allow him to use couple more feet of land to create some more room for parking. He showed some picture to the Board about his parking idea. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None AZ – It will be an actual recorded easement on the property? RF – Whatever it’s required he would talk again to his neighbor LM – It sounds like that you are going to need another continuance? RF – Probably, this is where he is MM – So, what are doing to the wall? RF – Right now is on disrepair and he would tear it down, with an excavator would rebuild it wider so he can fit 3 parking parallels MM – How are you going to rebuilt the wall? RF- right now is a brick/rocks wall, and he will excavate as much as he need to make enough space for the parking, the tree and the whole middle section will come down to fit 3 parallels and 3 angle at front AZ – He would like to see some plans that parking is non-stacked MM – Is there an apartment on each level? RF – Yes, and there is electricity on 1st and 3rd floor not on 2nd floor MM – where the trash barrel are going to be located? RF – At front of the house JB – Is this intent to be owner occupied? RF – No, I could if I have to Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – would like to come with a professional plan with the angle parking JM – Gage Street is a very narrow street and its look like that this originally was a 2 family dwelling LM – Let’s do a continuance for December 2018, so petitioner can have some additional time to create parking on his property. Board agree with the continuance so petitioner can present a final parking plan AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-23 under §181.3561 to Continue to December 11, 2018 with conditions: • Certified plot plan to be submitted showing parking at the time JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Continue to December 11, 2018 ZBA-2018-27 Elias DaRocha 142 DAY ST 9:30PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential C District at 32/7/0 Chair Person called 3 times, but petitioner is not in attendance at this hearting, and has not expressed what his intentions are Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – Petitioner was not in attendance at the previous meeting, but he verbally requested a continuance for November meeting. However he is not in attendance at this time for the hearing LM – Well by that being said at this time we will have to make a decision – AZ – Right Board Members are agree to leave the withdrawal without prejudice AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-27 under §181.3561 to give Leave to Withdraw without Prejudice JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 to Give Leave to Withdraw without Prejudice • MISCELLANEOUS • ADJOURNMENT